The Performance Specification must dovetail with the payment mechanism, which is another important aspect of the RFP.
The proponent will be expected to bear the risk of non-compliance with agreed standards. The Agreement could be framed so that unitary charge payments are reduced if the proponent does not take corrective action in line with the agreed payment mechanism. Another way of specifying this is to stipulate that the maximum amount of the unitary payment must be earned by achieving the highest standards. If lower standards are achieved, lower payments will be made. There also needs to be a mechanism so that if the standards fall below certain given levels, further consequences follow.
A practical form of performance monitoring needs to be agreed which minimizes disputes and is not expensive or excessively time-consuming for the department/program ministry/SIO or the proponent.
As part of the response to the RFP, the proponents need to describe their quality assurance and control processes in a way that will demonstrate how the delivery and continuity of services are to be achieved over the life of the contract. The onus should be on the proponent to develop a self-monitoring system, with the department requirement being for exception reporting and the audit of such arrangements.
Within the proposed payment mechanism set out in the RFP, the department needs to reflect the standards specified in the Performance Specification through relevant performance indicators. Some generic examples are set out in Table 1.
Table 1
Type of standard | Measuring performance |
|
|
Frequency/timeliness/continuity of service. | Agreed service plans. Records of service delivery. Sample checks. |
Response times/rectification periods. | Log of failure reports and the type and timing of the response. Sample checks. |
Client satisfaction. | Number and type of 'hotline' calls. Log of client complaints and responses. Independent reviews. Client surveys. |
Standards of physical resources. | Condition surveys, inspection reports. Sample checks. Photographs (e.g. of damage with the date/time electronically recorded). |
Compliance with recognized standards. | Proponent-driven or external or client audits, production of certificates etc. Time taken to implement new standards effectively. |
Quality and capabilities of personnel. | Evidence of effective recruitment and retention policies (including training). |
Security and Safety. | Log of incidents involving stealing and vandalism and responses taken. |
The 'client' will normally be program ministry and SIO. In measuring client satisfaction views of users and staff should be taken into account as well, where practical.
Client surveys are a tool for the purposes of informing a debate between the department, program ministry or SIO and the proponent as to the effectiveness of service delivery.
A possible incentive may be to allow the proponent to win back penalty payments as a result of positive feedback from surveys. This will, of course, require agreement on an acceptable survey methodology.